Ravindra Singh Parihar and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 35963 of 2026

¶3

Ravindra Singh Parihar And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Fakhruzzaman,	Falaq Wakeel
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Fakhruzzaman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Singh, learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed today, no notice need to be issued to respondent no. 5.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following relief:

¶13

"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling quashing/cancelling for the records and the conditional building permission and No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted on 12.12.2025 by Respondent No. 2 to the predecessor-in-interest of Private Respondent Nos. 5 over the land plots of Arazi No. 4073 and Arazi No. 4074 situated at Gram Talbehat Bahar, Tehsil Talbehat, District Lalitpur, as the same sits within the prohibited highway safety buffer zone and violates the explicit restrictive covenants of their parent title deed.

¶14

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2 (The District Magistrate /Collector, Lalitpur) to immediately consider, review, and decide the pending Restoration Application dated 3.07.2026 with stay application on 15.07.2026 moved by the Petitioners seeking the absolute revocation of the building permits, within a strict, expedited timeline to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶15

III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to strictly enforce the statutory building lines and public safety margins under Rule 7 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Rules, 1964, and immediately halt all unauthorized commercial construction activities, pillar installations, or structural configurations being carried out by Private Respondent Nos. 5 over the unpartitioned

¶16

WRIC No. 35963 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

joint land holdings."

¶19

At the outset, Sri Suresh Singh, learned A.C.S.C., has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the instant proceeding by submitting that highly disputed facts are being pressed in the writ jurisdiction, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the NOC accorded in favour of the private respondent under the Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1945") , an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act, 1945 itself. Thirdly, a serious dispute exists qua the ownership of the land in question, on account of which the petitioners have already instituted an original suit for injunction wherein, as per the claim set up by the petitioners, an injunction has also been granted. He submits that even in case the injunction is flouted, the petitioners can press an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC and, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶20

Confronted with this situation, Sri Fakhruzzaman, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submits that the petitioners are not inclined to challenge the NOC as accorded by respondent no. 2 in favour of private respondent, but leave may be granted to file an appeal before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, we are not inclined to advert the matter on its merits. We leave it open to the petitioners, in case they are so advised, to prefer an appeal before the State Government under Section 7 of the Act, 1945. In case any such appeal is preferred within one week, we expect that the same shall be considered to be well within time and decided on merits expeditiously, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶23

September 16, 2026 M.S. Ansari

¶24

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravindra Singh Parihar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Singh Parihar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases